zlacker

>>Xordev+(OP)
What a bummer that workers are publicly demanding this, and (presumably) seeking press attention on it.

I'm no fan of ICE – a very large percentage of my friends in the US are immigrants, and I generally want my country to be a welcoming one. ICE has certainly committed unethical and probably illegal acts (probably true of most federal agencies).

But to expect that a _federal agency_ will be denied service from a private entity, especially for essentially political reasons, is lunacy. It'd attract extreme negative attention from the rest of the government, and great fear from all paying customers that an internet mob could separate them from their code at any time.

We should absolutely be lobbying hard for changes to immigration law, the restrictions placed on ICE, and justice for their wrongdoings.

But I can't see how this helps improve immigration, and it certainly seems likely to cause a lot of negative consequences for GitHub. The employees are putting their employer in a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" situation.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I love the vision of a world where executives don't take actions their workers will protest. I think that in order to get there, the protests need to be reasonable, and I think this one isn't.

EDIT DISCLAIMER: I own a small amount of MSFT stock, which was not on my mind as I wrote this. I use GitHub's free service and have no other relationship I can think of with MSFT or GitHub.

>>rattra+Rh
> What a bummer that workers are publicly demanding this, and (presumably) seeking press attention on it.

They have a problem with their employer, and are being heard in the court of public opinion. Why is that "a bummer"?

I don't have a particular opinion on whether or not what they are doing is an effective way to accomplish their aims. But workers speaking out for any reason, ranging from unethical wage suppression to insufficient toilet breaks to disagreement with company policy, should always be cause for rejoicing.

Employers in the US hold a wildly disparate amount of power (with health insurance being tied to employment, and no social safety net) – so employees that speak out tend to help tilt that balance a very tiny bit back to the side of the employee.

>>quadri+An
Yeah, that's a good question. I think that's why this case upsets me. I want to live in a world where, as another commenter put it, executives will think twice before taking actions that they know their employees won't like. Because they should know that employees have power, and a voice, and must be listened to.

In this case, there's no way the executives can sanely take the requested action. It'd be terribly damaging to their business. (I may be wrong about this, but it's what I would think if I were an executive).

So now if I'm an executive, I have to roll my eyes at the protesting employees. They lose credibility. I'll know that next time I do something they ask for, they'll just ask me for something I can't do.

That's what bums be out.